A. A public officer or employee shall not represent another person for compensation before a public agency by which the officer or employee is or was employed within the preceding twelve months or on which the officer or employee serves or served within the preceding twelve months concerning any matter with which the officer or employee was directly concerned and in which the officer or employee personally participated during the officer's or employee's employment or service by a substantial and material exercise of administrative discretion.
B. During the period of a public officer's or employee's employment or service and for two years thereafter, a public officer or employee shall not disclose or use for the officer's or employee's personal profit, without appropriate authorization, any information acquired by the officer or employee in the course of the officer's or employee's official duties which has been clearly designated to the officer or employee as confidential when such confidential designation is warranted because of the status of the proceedings or the circumstances under which the information was received and preserving its confidentiality is necessary for the proper conduct of government business. A public officer or employee shall not disclose or use, without appropriate authorization, any information that is acquired by the officer or employee in the course of the officer's or employee's official duties and that is declared confidential by law.
C. A public officer or employee shall not use or attempt to use the officer's or employee's official position to secure any valuable thing or valuable benefit for the officer or employee that would not ordinarily accrue to the officer or employee in the performance of the officer's or employee's official duties if the thing or benefit is of such character as to manifest a substantial and improper influence on the officer or employee with respect to the officer's or employee's duties.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases, 1972–2011 · leading case:
State v. Ross, 151 P.3d 1261 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Ross, 151 P.3d 1261 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 31× “4 ¶ 29 The question here is what duty of the Assessor was improperly influenced? The State’s original argument was that the information was confidential, so the disclosure violated both subsections (B) and (C) of section 38-504. After the trial court dismissed count one…”
Yetman v. Naumann, 492 P.2d 1252 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1972).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 38-504 states: “Any public officer or employee who knowingly, wilfully or intentionally conceals or fails to disclose any substantial interest or who violates any provision of this article shall be guilty of a felony, and upon conviction shall forfeit his office.”
Planned Parenthood v. Lawall, 189 F. Supp. 2d 975 (D. Ariz. 2001).
· cites it 4× ““A public officer or employee shall not disclose or use, without appropriate authorization, any information that is acquired by the officer or employee in the course of the officer’s or employee’s official duties and that is declared confidential by law.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-504(A) — 1 case
State v. Ross, 151 P.3d 1261 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“4 ¶ 29 The question here is what duty of the Assessor was improperly influenced? The State’s original argument was that the information was confidential, so the disclosure violated both subsections (B) and (C) of section 38-504. After the trial court dismissed count one…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-504(B) — 3 cases
State v. Ross, 151 P.3d 1261 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“4 ¶ 29 The question here is what duty of the Assessor was improperly influenced? The State’s original argument was that the information was confidential, so the disclosure violated both subsections (B) and (C) of section 38-504. After the trial court dismissed count one…”
Planned Parenthood v. Lawall, 189 F. Supp. 2d 975 (D. Ariz. 2001).
““A public officer or employee shall not disclose or use, without appropriate authorization, any information that is acquired by the officer or employee in the course of the officer’s or employee’s official duties and that is declared confidential by law.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-504(C) — 1 case
State v. Ross, 151 P.3d 1261 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“4 ¶ 29 The question here is what duty of the Assessor was improperly influenced? The State’s original argument was that the information was confidential, so the disclosure violated both subsections (B) and (C) of section 38-504. After the trial court dismissed count one…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.